In a new study, a high genetic risk score (GRS) was associated with an increased risk of organ damage, renal (kidney) dysfunction and mortality in people with lupus. Organ damage, cardiovascular disease, proliferative nephritis (kidney lesions), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and presence of antiphospholipid antibodies were successfully predicted by a high GRS in people with lupus. GRSs have been applied in several fields of medicine and may be a potential tool for prediction of disease severity in lupus.

Clinical data from 1,001 people with lupus were analyzed. Their health outcomes and cumulative genetic risk were compiled and compared against the GRSs of 5,524 people with lupus and 9,859 healthy people. Lupus was more prevalent in the high-, compared with the low-GRS group Patients in the high GRS group had a 6-year earlier average disease onset, displayed higher prevalence of damage accrual, ERSD, proliferative nephritis, certain types of autoantibodies and positive lupus anticoagulant test, compared with patients in the low-GRS group. Survival analysis showed earlier onset of the first organ damage, first cardiovascular event, nephritis, ESRD and decreased overall survival in people with high GRSs compared to those with low scores.

Genetic profiling may be useful for predicting outcomes in people with lupus and aid in the clinical decision process. Understanding the genetic contribution to permanent organ damage is important for understanding how lupus develops. Learn more about the genetics of lupus.

Read the study

Go here to read the rest:
Genetic Risk Scores May Predict Severity and Outcomes in People with Lupus - Lupus Foundation of America

The deal will grant 1933 Industries license to the DNA brand for the production and sale of hemp-derived CBD products

1933 Industries Inc () (OTCMKTS:TGIFF) announced Thursday that it has signed a second licensing agreement with OG DNA Genetics, a globally recognized leading cannabis brand.

The agreement will grant 1933 Industries the license to the DNA brand for the production and sale of hemp-derived CBD products signaling DNAs first entry into the cannabidiol market. DNA will leverage 1933s vast distribution network of over 800 retail outlets throughout the US.

In 2018, the Farm Bill was passed through legislation federally legalizing the cultivation of hemp and permitting the sale of hemp-derived CBD products. This gives DNA the ability to expand itsreach into the rapidly developing CBD market and provide the highest-quality products to all 50 states and globally.

We are excited to expand our partnership with 1933, one of the leaders in the CBD wellness space, said Don Morris, co-founder of DNA Genetics. It feels good to build on an already strong relationship with a like-minded company committed to putting out the best quality products.

Chris Rebentisch, CEO of 1933 Industries, said DNA has the best quality products in the market.

Its fitting that we would work together to help bring the legacy brand into the CBD wellness space. We have an amazing lineup of products and are excited to leverage DNAs global reach through this agreement, Rebentisch said.

For more than 15 years, genetics developed by DNA have won more than 200 awards in all categories at the most prestigious cannabis events around the world, making DNA the global standard in breeding and growing truly best-in-class strains.

These awards include the High Times Top 10 Strain of the Year,which was inducted into The High Times seedbank hall of fame in 2009, the High Times 100 list of the most influential people in the industry and the High Times Trailer Blazers Award, for contributions made towards uniting the fields of entrepreneurship, politics and medicine.

1933 Industries, based in Chilliwack, British Columbia, owns licensed medical and adult-use cannabis cultivation and production assets, proprietary hemp-based, CBD-infused branded products, CBD extraction services and a specialized cannabis advisory firm.

Shares recently traded up 2.6% to C$0.20 in Canada.

--ADDS share price--

Contact the author: [emailprotected]

Follow him on Twitter @PatrickMGraham

More here:
1933 Industries signs second licensing deal with OG DNA Genetics - Proactive Investors USA & Canada

Should germline genetic testing be offered to all patients with breast cancer? The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) addresses this important question in a new statement published in Genetics in Medicine, "Points to Consider: Is There Evidence to Support BRCA1/2 and Other Inherited Breast Cancer Genetic Testing for All Breast Cancer Patients? A Statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics."

Of all cancers that develop in women in the United States (US), breast cancer has the highest incidence, regardless of race or ethnicity. Approximately 5-10% of breast cancers are estimated to result from hereditary causes, the majority of which are attributed to pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes, although variants in other genes such as PALB2, TP53, PTEN, CDH1, CHEK2 and ATM also contribute.

Identification of inherited cancer risk empowers individuals and their families to prevent cancers or detect them early. Furthermore, incorporating genetic testing results into patients' care plans has the potential to guide treatment and improve outcomes. But testing alone will not improve outcomes. Implementation of appropriate care following testing is required and data are needed to generate evidence that informs clinical practice.

As progress in precision medicine continues, it is important that patients receive accurate information to ensure the implementation of risk reducing strategies and evidence-based cancer genomics best practices. The purpose of this new ACMG points-to-consider document is to outline the rationale for ongoing support of existing evidence-based guidelines built on a risk stratification approach while data related to broader testing strategies continues to emerge.

Medical geneticists play an important role in facilitating the best care and practices of patients with cancer or a predisposition to develop cancer. This Points to Consider document acknowledges the complexity of professional organization guidelines in the cancer space. Medical geneticists are uniquely qualified to analyze the literature that informs professional organizations and their guidelines. Implementation of cancer genetic testing guidelines is best when carried out with input and in many cases under the direction of a medical geneticist with cancer expertise."

Anthony R. Gregg, MD, MBA, FACOG, FACMG, ACMG President

The new ACMG document provides points for clinicians to consider in the context of testing breast cancer patients for inherited cancer predisposition, including:

The points-to-consider document concludes by stating, "With the advances in sequencing technologies and increasing access to and expanding indications for genetic testing, it remains critical to ensure that implementation of testing is based on evidence. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend genetic testing for BRCA1/2 alone or in combination with multi-gene panels for all breast cancer patients. Ideally, professional societies should work together to weigh data, formulate and harmonize evidence-based recommendations, and seek to reduce barriers to care...Moreover...the implementation of precision medicine approaches across oncology must also consider a means by which the promise of genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition may be realized by all populations, regardless of race, ethnicity and ability to pay."

Source:

Journal reference:

Pal, T., et al. (2019) Points to consider: is there evidence to support BRCA1/2 and other inherited breast cancer genetic testing for all breast cancer patients? A statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genetics in Medicine. doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0712-x.

Read the original:
Points to consider: Should germline genetic testing be offered to all patients with breast cancer? - News-Medical.net

This week, GEDmatch, a genetic genealogy company that gained notoriety for giving law enforcement access to its customers DNA data, quietly informed its users it is now operated by Verogen, Inc., a company expressly formed two years ago to market next-generation [DNA] sequencing technology to crime labs.

What this means for GEDmatchs 1.3 million users and for the 60% of white Americans who share DNA with those users remains to be seen.

GEDmatch allows users to upload an electronic file containing their raw genotyped DNA data so that they can compare it to other users data to find biological family relationships. It estimates how close or distant those relationships may be (e.g., a direct connection, like a parent, or a distant connection, like a third cousin), and it enables users to determine where, along each chromosome, their DNA may be similar to another user. It also predicts characteristics like ethnicity.

Get Truthouts daily edition delivered to your inbox.

An estimated 30 million people have used genetic genealogy databases like GEDmatch to identify biological relatives and build a family tree, and law enforcement officers have been capitalizing on all that freely available data in criminal investigations. Estimates are that genetic genealogy sites were used in around 200 cases just last year. For many of those cases, officers never sought a warrant or any legal process at all.

Earlier this year, after public outcry, GEDmatch changed its previous position allowing for warrantless law enforcement searches, opted out all its users from those searches, and required all users to expressly opt in if they wanted to allow access to their genetic data. Only a small percentage did. But opting out has not prevented law enforcement from accessing consumers genetic data, as long as they can get a warrant, which one Orlando, Florida officer did last summer.

Law enforcement has argued that people using genetic genealogy services have no expectation of privacy in their genetic data because users have willingly shared their data with the genetics company and with other users and have consented to a companys terms of service. But the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in Carpenter v. United States.

In Carpenter, the Court ruled that even though our cell phone location data is shared with or stored by a phone company, we still have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it because of all the sensitive and private information it can reveal about our lives. Similarly, genetic data can reveal a whole host of extremely private and sensitive information about people, from their likelihood to inherit specific diseases to where their ancestors are from to whether they have a sister or brother they never knew about. Researchers have even theorized at one time or another that DNA may predict race, intelligence, criminality, sexual orientation, and political ideology. Even if later disproved, officials may rely on outdated research like this to make judgements about and discriminate against people. Because genetic data is so sensitive, we have an expectation of privacy in it, even if other people can access it.

However, whether individual users of genetic genealogy databases have consented to law enforcement searches is somewhat beside the point. In all cases that we know of so far, law enforcement isnt looking for the person who uploaded their DNA to a consumer site, they are looking for that persons distant relatives people who never could have consented to this kind of use of their genetic data because they dont have any control over the DNA they happen to share with the sites users.

That means these searches are nothing more than fishing expeditions through millions of innocent peoples DNA. They are not targeted at finding specific users or based on individualized suspicion a fact the police admit because they dont know who their suspect is. They are supported only by the hope that a crime scene sample might somehow be genetically linked to DNA submitted to a genetic genealogy database by a distant relative, which might give officers a lead in a case. Theres a real question whether a warrant that allows this kind of search could ever meet the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

These are also dragnet searches, conducted under general warrants, and no different from officers searching every house in a town with a population of 1.3 million on the off chance that one of those houses could contain evidence useful to finding the perpetrator of a crime. With or without a warrant, the Fourth Amendment prohibits searches like this in the physical world, and it should prohibit genetic dragnets like this one as well.

We need to think long and hard as a society about whether law enforcement should be allowed to access genetic genealogy databases at all even with a warrant. These searches impact millions of Americans. Although GEDmatch likely only encompasses about 0.5% of the U.S. adult population, research shows 60% of white Americans can already be identified from its 1.3 million users. This same research shows that once GEDmatchs users encompass just 2% of the U.S. population, 90% of white Americans will be identifiable.

Although many authorities once argued these kinds of searches would only be used as a way to solve cold cases involving the most terrible and serious crimes, that is changing; this year, police used genetic genealogy to implicate a teenager for a sexual assault. Next year it could be used to identify political or environmental protestors. Unlike established criminal DNA databases like the FBIs CODIS database, there are currently few rules governing how and when genetic genealogy searching may be used.

We should worry about these searches for another reason: they can implicate people for crimes they didnt commit. Although police used genetic searching to finally identify the man they believe is the Golden State Killer, an earlier search in the same case identified a different person. In 2015, a similar search in a different case led police to suspect an innocent man. Even without genetic genealogy searches, DNA matches may lead officers to suspect and jail the wrong person, as happened in a California case in 2012. That can happen because we shed DNA constantly and because our DNA may be transferred from one location to another, possibly ending up at the scene of a crime, even if we were never there.

All of this is made even more concerning by the recent acquisition of GEDmatch by a company whose main purpose is to help the police solve crimes. The ability to research family history and disease risk shouldnt carry the threat that our data will be accessible to police or others and used in ways we never could have foreseen. Genetic genealogy searches by law enforcement invade our privacy in unique ways they allow law enforcement to access information about us that we may not even know ourselves, that we have no ability to hide, and that could reveal more about us in the future than scientists know now. These searches should never be allowed even with a warrant.

Visit link:
Genetic Testing Company Acquired by Company With Ties to FBI and Law Enforcement - Truthout

Harvard biologist George Church already needed to apologize for a palling around with Jeffrey Epstein even after the financier pleaded to responsible for preying on minors a decade in the past. Now hes elevating eyebrows once morewith plans for a genetics-based courting app.

In an interview with 60 Minutes, Church stated his expertise would pair people based on the propensity of their genes, when mixed in kids, to remove hereditary ailments. Yuko, in contrast, the app, as described, to the Nazi purpose of cultivating a grasp race: I believed we realized after World War II that we werent going to be doing that, she stated.

The church was a part of the coterie of scientists with whom Epstein ingratiated himself via large donations, and Epstein helped bankroll his lab from 2005 to 2007. Church has admitted he repeatedly met and spoke with Epstein for years after the 2008 plea deal that landed him on the intercourse-offender registry.

Epstein had a twisted take on genetics, internet hosting scientific conferences at which he expressed his want to propagate his personal genome by impregnating as much as 20 girls at a time at his New Mexico ranch, like cattle inventory.

Within the 60 Minutes interview, Church referred to as his ties to Epstein unlucky and added: You do not all the time know your donors in addition to you want to.

However, a lot of the phase was dedicated to Churchs genetic-engineering work at Harvard Medical School, together with the app that might theoretically display out potential mates with the improper DNA.

The geneticist didnt drop the apps to identify, or how far alongside its in improvement. He additionally didnt reply to a request for a remark.

Within the interview, the Church acknowledged the drawbacks of genetic sorting. He suffers from dyslexia, consideration deficit dysfunction, and narcolepsyissues that may render him an incompatible match to many. Yuko stated the choice standards could be a sticking level for Churchs app thought.

More here:
A New Genetic Based Dating App Will Soon Arrive in The Market - Science Market News

A genetic variant found in about 3% of people of African ancestry is a more significant cause of heart failure than previously believed, according to a multi-institution study led by researchers at Penn Medicine. The researchers also found that this type of heart failure is underdiagnosed. According to their study, 44% of TTR V122Ivariant carriers older than age 50 had heart failure, but only 11% of these individuals had been diagnosed with hATTR-CM. The average time to diagnosis was three years, indicating both high rates of underdiagnoses and prolonged time to appropriate diagnosis

This study suggests that workup for amyloid cardiomyopathy and genetic testing of TTR should be considered, when appropriate, to identify patients at risk for the disease and intervene before they develop more severe symptoms or heart failure, said the studys lead author Scott Damrauer, M.D., an assistant professor of Surgery at Penn Medicine and a vascular surgeon at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center. (Penn Medicine consists of the Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania Health System.)

In this study, researchers from Penn Medicine and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai used a genome-first approach, performing DNA sequencing of 9,694 individuals of African and Latino ancestry enrolled in either the Penn Medicine BioBank (PMBB) or the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai BioMe biobank (BioMe). Researchers identified TTR V122I carriers and then examined longitudinal electronic health record-linked genetic data to determine which of the carriers had evidence of heart failure.

The findings, which were published today in JAMA, are particularly important given the US Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) approval of the first therapy (tafamidis) for ATTR-CM in May 2019. Prior to tafamidiss approval, treatment was largely limited to supportive care for heart failure symptoms and, in rare cases, heart transplant.

Our findings suggest that hATTR-CM is a more common cause of heart failure than its perceived to be, and that physicians are not sufficiently considering the diagnosis in certain patients who present with heart failure, said the studys corresponding author Daniel J. Rader, M.D., chair of the Department of Genetics at Penn Medicine. With the recent advances in treatment, its critical to identify patients at risk for the disease and, when appropriate, perform the necessary testing to produce an earlier diagnosis and make the effective therapy available.

hATTR-CM, also known as cardiac amyloidosis, typically manifests in older patients and is caused by the buildup of abnormal deposits of a specific transthyretin protein known as amyloid in the walls of the heart. The heart walls become stiff, resulting in the inability of the left ventricle to properly relax and adequately pump blood out of the heart. However, this type of heart failurewhich presents similar to hypertensive heart disease is common, and the diagnosis of hATTR-CM is often not considered.

Tafamidis meglumine is a non-NSAID benzoxazole derivative that binds to TTR with high affinity and selectivity. TTR acts by transporting the retinol-binding protein-vitamin A complex. It is also a minor transporter of thyroxine in blood. Its tetrameric structure can become amyloidogenic by undergoing rate-limiting dissociation and monomer misfolding.

Continue reading here:
Penn Team Finds Genetic Variant Largely Found in Patients of African Descent that Increases Heart Failure Risk - Clinical OMICs News

Ariel Davis for BuzzFeed NewsShare on Facebook Share on Facebook Share on Pinterest Share on Pinterest Pinterest Pinterest

Genetics just got personal. So boasted the website of 23andMe in 2008, just after launching its DNA testing service.

As we entered this decade, a small cohort of companies 23andMe, its Silicon Valley neighbor Navigenics, and Icelandic competitor deCODE Genetics were selling a future of personalized medicine: Patients would hold the keys to longer and healthier lives by understanding the risks written into their DNA and working with their doctors to reduce them.

We all carry this information, and if we bring it together and democratize it, we could really change health care, 23andMe cofounder Anne Wojcicki told Time magazine when it dubbed the companys DNA test 2008s invention of the year, beating out Elon Musks Tesla Roadster.

But in reality, the 2010s would be when genetics got social. As the decade comes to a close, few of us have discussed our genes with our doctors, but millions of us have uploaded our DNA profiles to online databases to fill in the details of our family trees, explore our ethnic roots, and find people who share overlapping sequences of DNA.

Advertisement

Its become like Facebook for genes, driven by the same fundamental human desire to connect. And, as with Mark Zuckerbergs social media behemoth, this is the decade we reckoned with what it really means to hand over some of our most personal data in the process.

A 23andMe saliva collection kit for DNA testing.

It all panned out differently from the way I imagined in 2009, when I paid $985 to deCODE and $399 to 23andMe to put my DNA into the service of science journalism. (I spared my then-employer, New Scientist magazine, the $2,500 charge for the boutique service offered by Navigenics.)

I was intrigued by the potential of DNA testing for personalized medicine, but from the beginning, I was also concerned about privacy. I imagined a future in which people could steal our medical secrets by testing the DNA we leave lying around on discarded tissues and coffee cups. In 2009, a colleague and I showed that all it took to hack my genome in this way was a credit card, a private email account, a mailing address, and DNA testing companies willing to do business without asking questions.

Advertisement

Much of the rest of what I wrote about DNA testing back then reflected pushback from leading geneticists who argued that the companies visions of personalized medicine werent ready for primetime.

As I explored the reports offered by 23andMe and deCODE, I couldnt help but agree especially when deCODE wrongly concluded that I carry two copies of a variant of a gene that would give me a 40% lifetime chance of developing Alzheimers. (Luckily, it wasnt cause for panic. Id pored over my DNA in enough detail by then to know that I carry only one copy, giving me a still-elevated but much less scary lifetime risk of about 13%.)

Despite such glitches, it still seemed that medicine was where the payoffs of mainstream genetic testing were going to be. As costs to sequence the entire genome plummeted, I expected gene-testing firms to switch from using gene chips that scan hundreds of thousands of genetic markers to new sequencing technology that would allow them to record all 3 billion letters of our DNA.

So in 2012, eager to provide our readers with a preview of what was to come, New Scientist paid $999 for me to have my exome sequenced in a pilot project offered by 23andMe. This is the 1.5% of the genome that is read to make proteins and is where the variants that affect our health are most likely to lurk.

Experts at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee analyzed my exome. While they werent at that point able to tell me much of medical significance that I didnt already know, the article I wrote from the experience in 2013 predicted a future in which doctors would routinely scour their patients genomes for potential health problems and prescribe drugs that have been specifically designed to correct the biochemical pathways concerned.

Advertisement

Im glad I included an important caveat: This may take several decades.

By then, the revolution promised by 23andMe and its competitors was faltering. Navigenics and deCODE had both been acquired by bigger companies and stopped selling DNA tests directly to the public.

23andMe, backed by the deep pockets of Google and other Silicon Valley investors, had enough cash to continue. But it fell foul of the FDA, which had decided that the company was selling medical devices that needed official approval to be put on the market. In a 2013 warning letter, the FDA said that 23andMe had failed to provide adequate evidence that its tests produced accurate results. By the end of 2013, 23andMe had stopped offering assessments of health risks to new customers.

Since then, the company has slowly clawed its way back into the business of health. In 2015, it was given FDA approval to tell customers whether they were carriers for a number of inherited diseases; in 2017, it started providing new customers with assessments of health risks once more.

I recently updated my 23andMe account, getting tested on the latest version of its chip. My results included reports on my genetic risk of experiencing 13 medical conditions. Back in 2013, there were more than 100 such reports, plus assessments of my likely responses to a couple dozen drugs.

In the lab, discovery has continued at a pace, but relatively few findings have found their way into the clinic.

Advertisement

If youve recently been pregnant, you were probably offered blood tests to tell whether your fetus had a serious genetic abnormality. And if youve been diagnosed with cancer, a biopsy may have been sequenced to look for mutations that make some drugs a good bet and other ones a bust. Neither would have been common a decade ago.

But the wider health care revolution envisaged by Wojcicki remains far off.

A few weeks ago, I saw my doctor to discuss my moderately high blood cholesterol and had a conversation that Id once predicted would be common by now. I had signed up for a project called MyGeneRank, which took my 23andMe data and calculated my genetic risk of experiencing coronary artery disease based on 57 genetic markers, identified in a 2015 study involving more than 180,000 people.

My genetic risk turns out to be fairly low. After I pulled out my phone and showed my doctor the app detailing my results, we decided to hold off on taking a statin for now, while I make an effort to improve my diet and exercise more. But it was clear from her reaction that patients dont usually show up wanting to talk about their DNA.

We have all these naysayers and an immense body of research that is not being used to help patients, said Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California, which runs the MyGeneRank project.

Advertisement

Joseph James DeAngelo, the suspected "Golden State Killer," appears in court for his arraignment in Sacramento, April 27, 2018.

23andMes collision with the FDA wound up being a turning point in ways I didnt anticipate at the time. From the start, the company included an assessment of customers ancestries as part of the package. But after the FDA cracked down, it pivoted to make ancestry and finding genetic relatives its main focus. Offering the test at just $99, 23andMe went on a marketing blitz to expand its customer base competing with a new rival.

Ancestry.com launched its genome-scanning service in May 2012 and has since gone head-to-head with 23andMe through dueling TV ads and Black Friday discount deals.

DNA tests became an affordable stocking filler, as millions of customers were sold a journey of self-discovery and human connection. We were introduced to new genetic relatives. And we were told that the results might make us want to trade in our lederhosen for a kilt or connect us to distant African ancestors.

Today, Ancestrys database contains some 15 million DNA profiles; 23andMes more than 10 million. Family Tree DNA and MyHeritage, the two other main players, have about 3.5 million DNA profiles between them. And for the most dedicated family history enthusiasts, there is GEDmatch, where customers can upload DNA profiles from any of the main testing companies and look for potential relatives. It contains about 1.2 million DNA profiles.

Advertisement

So far, so much fun. But DNA testing can reveal uncomfortable truths, too. Families have been torn apart by the discovery that the man they call Dad is not the biological father of his children. Home DNA tests can also be used to show that a relative is a rapist or a killer.

That possibility burst into the public consciousness in April 2018, with the arrest of Joseph James DeAngelo, alleged to be the Golden State Killer responsible for at least 13 killings and more than 50 rapes in the 1970s and 1980s. DeAngelo was finally tracked down after DNA left at the scene of a 1980 double murder was matched to people in GEDmatch who were the killer's third or fourth cousins. Through months of painstaking work, investigators working with the genealogist Barbara Rae-Venter built family trees that converged on DeAngelo.

Genealogists had long realized that databases like GEDmatch could be used in this way, but had been wary of working with law enforcement fearing that DNA test customers would object to the idea of cops searching their DNA profiles and rummaging around in their family trees.

But the Golden State Killers crimes were so heinous that the anticipated backlash initially failed to materialize. Indeed, a May 2018 survey of more than 1,500 US adults found that 80% backed police using public genealogy databases to solve violent crimes.

Advertisement

I was very surprised with the Golden State Killer case how positive the reaction was across the board, CeCe Moore, a genealogist known for her appearances on TV, told BuzzFeed News a couple of months after DeAngelos arrest.

The new science of forensic genetic genealogy quickly became a burgeoning business, as a company in Virginia called Parabon NanoLabs, which already had access to more than 100 crime scene samples through its efforts to produce facial reconstructions from DNA, teamed up with Moore to work cold cases through genealogy.

Before long, Parabon and Moore were identifying suspected killers and rapists at the rate of about one a week. Intrigued, my editor and I decided to see how easy it would be to identify 10 BuzzFeed employees from their DNA profiles, mimicking Parabons methods. In the end, I found four through matches to their relatives DNA profiles and another two thanks to their distinctive ancestry. It was clear that genetic genealogy was already a powerful investigative tool and would only get more so as DNA databases continued to grow.

A backlash did come, however, after two developments revealed by BuzzFeed News in 2019. In January, Family Tree DNA disclosed that it had allowed the FBI to search its database for partial matches to crime-scene samples since the previous fall without telling its customers. I feel they have violated my trust, Leah Larkin, a genetic genealogist based in Livermore, California, told BuzzFeed News at the time.

Then, in May, BuzzFeed News reported that police in Centerville, Utah, had convinced Curtis Rogers, a retired Florida businessperson who cofounded GEDmatch, to breach the sites own terms and conditions, which were supposed to restrict law enforcement use to investigations of homicides or sexual assaults. That allowed Parabon to use matches in the database to identify the perpetrator of a violent assault.

Advertisement

Larkin and other genealogists condemned the move, calling it the start of a slippery slope that would see the method being used to investigate more trivial crimes.

As barbs flew between genealogists working with law enforcement and those who advocate for genetic privacy, GEDmatch responded with new terms of service that extended the definition of violent crime, but also required users to explicitly opt in for their DNA profiles to be included in law enforcement searches.

Overnight, GEDmatch became useless for criminal investigations. Since then, the number of users opting in for matching to crime-scene samples has slowly increased, and now stands at more than 200,000. But progress in cracking criminal cases has remained slow.

Now that cops have seen the power of forensic genetic genealogy, however, they dont want to let it go. In November, the New York Times revealed that a detective in Florida had obtained a warrant to search the entirety of GEDmatch, regardless of opt-ins. It seems only a matter of time before someone tries to serve a warrant to search the huge databases of 23andMe or Ancestry, which dont give cops access sparking legal battles that could go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Genetic privacy, barely mentioned as millions of us signed up to connect with family across the world and dig into our ancestral roots, is suddenly front and center.

This week, Rogers and the other cofounder of GEDmatch, John Olson, removed themselves from the heat when they sold GEDmatch to Verogen, a company in San Diego that makes equipment to sequence crime-scene DNA. Verogen CEO Brett Williams told BuzzFeed News that he sees a business opportunity in charging police for access to the database but promised to respect users privacy. Were not going to force people to opt in, he said.

Advertisement

But it isnt just whether cops can run searches against your DNA. 23andMe may not share your information with law enforcement, but customers are asked when they signed up whether if they are OK with their de-identified DNA being used for genetic research.

It might not be obvious when you fill in the consent form, but this lies at the heart of 23andMes business model. The reason the company pushed so hard to expand its database of DNA profiles is to use this data in research to develop new drugs, either by itself or by striking deals with pharmaceutical companies.

Ancestry has also asked its users to consent to participate in research, teaming up with partners that have included Calico, a Google spinoff researching ways to extend human lifespan.

You might be comfortable with all of this. You might not. You should definitely think about it because when the information is your own DNA, there really is no such thing as de-identified data.

That DNA profile is inextricably tied to your identity. It might be stripped of your name and decoupled from the credit card you used to pay for the test. But as 23andMe warns in its privacy policy: In the event of a data breach it is possible that your data could be associated with your identity, which could be used against your interests.

Advertisement

And because you share a large part of your genome with close relatives, when you put your DNA profile into a companys database, you arent only making a decision for yourself: Their privacy is on the line, too.

Whether its due to concerns about privacy, a saturated market, or just that the novelty has worn off, sales of DNA ancestry tests are slowing. Ancestry has responded by offering a new product focused on health risks. Unlike 23andMe, it requires that tests are ordered through PWNHealth, a national network of doctors and genetic counselors.

Will this be the development that takes us back to the future I once imagined? Maybe so, but if the roller coaster of the past decade has taught me anything, its to be wary about making any predictions about our genetic future.

Peter Aldhous is a Science Reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in San Francisco.

Contact Peter Aldhous at peter.aldhous@buzzfeed.com.

Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

Excerpt from:
Were Living In The DNA Future, But Its Not The One We Were Promised - BuzzFeed News

OG DNA Genetics recently disclosed a licensing agreement in conjunction with Green Peak Innovations, a medical cannabis producer and distributor in the Michigan market.

This arrangement will concede Green Peak Innovations consent to the DNA brand and access to their genetics portfolio for use at the companys cannabis cultivation and processing plant in Harvest Park, Michigan. Additionally to growing DNA genetics, Green Peak has entered the retail sector, with several locations around the state.

The recent permit of adult-use cannabis police in Michigan will enable Green Peak to supply recreational and medical users high-quality strains.

Want to hear exclusive updates on the adult-use licensing process? Check out the next meetup with MRA Executive Director, Andrew Brisbo on Dec. 18 at the Benzinga Headquarters! Get your tickets here before they sell out!

"By partnering with Green Peak Innovations, we position ourselves to expand into the rapidly developing Michigan cannabis market alongside a proven and trusted cannabis producer and distributor," said Charles Phillips, CEO of DNA Genetics.

Jeff Radway, CEO of Green Peak Innovations said, "We appreciate what DNA has accomplished for the cannabis industry and are excited to partner with them. We believe that by incorporating DNAs library of best-in-class cultivars and award-winning genetics into our facility, we can further enhance our ability to deliver the highest-quality products to Michigan and eventually the entire United States."

2019 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Follow this link:
DNA Genetics Announces Agreement With Green Peak To Make The Most Of Michigan Adult-Use Cannabis Market - Benzinga

The first study resulting from the GenomeAsia 100K project has revealed that Asia has at least ten distinct genetic ancestral lines, compared to the single genetic lineage found in northern Europe.

The results were found from the genomic sequencing of 598 individuals belonging to 55 ethnic groups from India. The project is set to expand to cover the genomes of 100,000 individuals across southeast Asia.

To put it into context, imagine we looked at all people of European descent and based on the level of their genetic diversity, observed that they could all be grouped into just one ancestral lineage or population, said Stephan C. Schuster, professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

Now, if we took that same approach with our new data from people of Asian descent, then based on the much higher levels of genetic diversity observed we would say that there are ten different ancestral groups or lineages in Asia.

India has long been underrepresented in global genetic databanks. India represents almost twenty percent of the worlds population and is on track to become the worlds most populous nation in the coming decades. Despite this, only 0.2 percent of fully mapped genomes in global databanks are of Indian origin.

In adding genetic diversity to the global databanks, the GenomeAsia project, therefore, is vital as it allows for the analysis of diseases and conditions linked to a genetic origin that is unique among the ethnic groups present in Asia.

Despite low coverage in global databanks, current information on Indian genetics has identified six genes that are unique among the Indian population. These genes all present unique risk factors in the development of diabetes. To an extent, this explains part of the increase in prevalence of diabetes within India, with the unique genetic risk factors combining with increasingly unhealthy lifestyles to rapidly increase the rates of diabetes.

We have a great opportunity to apply genomics in India to understand, manage and treat diseases. Genomic analysis of our unique population groups and disease cohorts will lead to identification of genetic mutations and drug targets not just for India but for the whole world, said Sam Santhosh, chief executive officer of genomics-driven research and diagnostics company MedGenome and one of the study authors.

This is a position also held by the Indian government, with increased investment into genome sequencing sourced from the Centre. The potential benefits to the healthcare system are both considerable and multifaceted. Knowledge of unique risks among Indias population can allow for considerable improvements to preventative healthcare, as well as drug targeting in order to make use of the most effective drugs for the individual.

Like Loading...

Related

More:
The many ancestral genetic lines of India - Hyderus Cyf

Jens Carlsson of the UCD School of Biology is co-founder of the Area 52 research group that aims to solve a variety of genetic questions.

After completing his PhD in 2001, followed by a stint at the Danish Institute for Freshwater Research in Silkeborg, assistant professor Jens Carlsson travelled to the US in 2002 to work as a postdoc at the Virginia Institute for Marine Science.

In 2007, he was appointed a visiting associate professor at Duke University, North Carolina, to research the population structure of striped sea bass.

In 2009, he travelled to Ireland to work at University College Cork as a senior research fellow, which included work on deep sea vessels. Then, in 2012, he made the move to University College Dublin and established his research group, Area 52.

Too many people have been watching the CSI TV series and have strange ideas of how a modern genetics laboratory works JENS CARLSSON

I think I have had an interest in fish since I was introduced to fishing as a kid. While completing my BSc project, I was fascinated by the questions you could ask and answer using scientific approaches.

The freedom that academic research has for coming up with projects and then sourcing funding, to actually examine these questions, was probably the reason why I stayed on in science.

The research group Area 52 quickly developed when I started working in UCD. It is now a rather diverse group and we take on research questions from a wide range of disciplines from viral diseases in fish to identification of human remains.

It is the use of genetic methods that allows us to work with these very diverse questions and, so far, all organisms have DNA or RNA so there are a huge variety of questions that we can address.

This also means that we collaborate with a large number of colleagues. While we have the genetic expertise, we also need to work with people who understand the biology and ecology of the organisms.

When Area 52 started, it was only myself and my wife and lab manager in the lab group. But now it has grown significantly and consists of undergraduates, summer interns, visiting students, MSc students, PhD candidates, postdocs, research fellows and research scientists.

I believe that genetics has the capacity to answer questions that no other research field can do.

For example, when you look at marine fish, there are no clear barriers preventing different populations from mixing. However, this does not mean that the fish all belong to the same biological unit or population.

While fish from multiple biological units can mix at feeding areas, they often return to specific spawning sites with each spawning site representing a single biological unit.

Multiple species have been shown using genetics separated into different populations to represent different biological units. This has profound implications for the management of fisheries species, as the level where management needs to take place is natural biological units and this might differ depending on the time of the year.

You might have multiple populations mixing at feeding grounds and it is very difficult to say which fish came from which population when being caught in commercial fisheries as they tend to look the same. However, by using genetic tools we are able to say which individual belongs to which population.

Furthermore, Area 52 has a strong focus on developing non-invasive sampling methods for studies of terrestrial mammals such as elephants, zebras and giraffes primarily in Kenya.

It is often very difficult and invasive to collect genetic material for these animals. We focus on using scat samples that are completely non-invasive. The animal does its business and we collect the scat and use that as source of genetic material.

Area 52 often works with method development and these methods can obviously be used in the commercial world. For example, the management of fisheries species and the integrity of supply chains.

However, the main focus of the lab is in deploying the methods we develop in conservation and environmental monitoring of water ecosystems.

It is always difficult to find time to do the research. You are teaching, mentoring, doing research and administration. At the same time, you need to secure funding for your research and that is difficult.

This is not only because of the lack of time, but also because of the strong competition among researchers for the very limited funding. This means that you can spend significant time on writing a grant application and then it is not funded. I wish the success rate of grants would be higher.

Too many people have been watching the CSI TV series and have strange ideas of how a modern genetics laboratory works.

The big question is climate change and how that will affect distribution and survival of species. This is a very important question requiring collaboration among a large number of researchers from many different fields of science.

Are you a researcher with an interesting project to share? Let us know by emailing editorial@siliconrepublic.com with the subject line Science Uncovered.

See the article here:
Fishy genetics: A behind-the-scenes look at UCD's Area 52 - Siliconrepublic.com