$1000 entire genome scan (at+mt+X or Y)

[jah]

But doctors still can't be sure that a medicine will be equaly efficient to everybody. Different people react differently to same medication. Medical research is always statistical.

But medical **care** is clinical. In the case of a person having an adverse reaction to a medication, the story likely doesn't end there. A healthcare provider makes an evaluation of the reaction, reconsiders data about the patient's condition, and proceeds from there. That's clinical, not just statistical.

My point is that DNA testing & evaluation can move towards being clinical by becoming more holistic--integrating insights about one's autosomal DNA with those regarding her/his mtDNA, for example.

What if a DNA test could tell one when & where her/his founding mitochondrial ancestress was born? I believe answers like that are coming.

[jah]

More about drug metabolism, ethnicity and the future of genetic genealogy

From 23's Spittoon, 8/19/08:

"To further emphasize the differences between people within the same ethnic group, the authors compare the publicly available genome sequences of [Craig] Venter himself and Nobel Prize winner James Watson, focusing on six genes involved in drug metabolism.

One of those genes revealed a substantial difference between the two men. CYP2D6 is involved in the metabolism of various drugs for high blood pressure, heart arrhythmia and depression. Venter

[jah]

continued

"...Venter

[jah]

one more try

Venter

[jah]

nice

Troubles, eh, Darren?

[jah]

expert anthropological input needed

Has anyone seen Dienekes on this forum?

(Don't know who Dienekes is? Check out dienekes.blogspot.com; you'll be glad you did.)

[jah]

From 23's founders Avey and Wojcicki, in the Spittoon, 8/26:

23's service is "designed to be a means for people to tap into their own DNA and gain an intimate understanding of the genetic associations researchers are discovering at an ever increasing rate. By providing people the voluntary opportunity to learn more about their own genes, we set out to facilitate genetics going

[jah]

continued

...

[jah]

continued

'mainstream', which we believe could hasten the path to personalized health care.

We weren't surprised to see California and New York stepping in to exert regulatory oversight of this nascent industry...[E]ven though we don't agree existing statutes are the best fit, we agreed to voluntarily apply for clinical licensure from California.

Comment:
I doubt that genetics will ever "go mainstream," but it seems likely that the drive to realize "personalized health care" will power genetic genealogy to achieve much, much more than is currently possible with DNA analysis services.

Those of you with small children: get them into computer science and genetics, because this is gonna be **huge**.

[jah]

did you know...

Anne Wojcicki is the wife of Sergei Brin, he of Google fame.

Makes one wonder what the future holds, given that Google already is working on personalized health care.

Given Brin's deep pockets, and Google's personal and financial connections to 23andme, it's time to demand more from genetic genealogy.

Don't settle for less, folks.

[jah]

23 drops their price, but don't jump just yet

So now one gets phenotype analysis of more of their SNPs, and for $399 rather than $1000. Okay--but hold out 2 more years and you're very likely to get a great deal more for your 400 bucks.

For those not yet in the know, studies have been and continue to be done looking at specific traits and/or DNA haplotypes in various populations around the world. As the data is accumulated, and as various DNA analysis companies build their subscriber bases by presenting the data in various fashions, we get a certain general level of analysis.

So when do we get to the next level from where we are now? My guess is, give it 2 to 5 years. Another 5 years after that, the surviving companies will either be offering, or preparing to offer, analysis based on one's **entire** genome. Yes, autosomal + mtDNA + XX or XY.

[jah]

knowing disease risks may help to better know ancestry

People today often start with knowledge of their ancestry and proceed to learn about their potential for increased risks of disease based on their genetic inheritance. We have the HapMap, a US gov't-financed register of common gene variations in humans, to thank for this.

What if one could start with knowledge, based on a comparison of one's genes with the HapMap, of her/his potential risk of a certain disease or group of diseases and from there proceed to know her/his ancestry better? The idea that undergirds this is called the "common disease/common variant" hypothesis--and admittedly, it's come under fire recently. (See David Goldstein, for example.)

But consider the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Everyone has them, but unfortunately some have deleterious mutations in them that dramatically increase the risk of breast cancer (in men as well as women) and/or ovarian cancer. Furthermore, different deleterious mutations have been found in different populations.

So, for now, looking at known "disease genes," or even just at genes for relatively innocuous traits, may increase one's knowledge of her/his ancestry. When the $1000 human genome sequence (+ mtDNA) has been on the scene for a few years, however, we'll get past talking about a gene here and one there and start getting some real information about ancestry.

[Nagelfar]

Another 5 years after that, the surviving companies will either be offering, or preparing to offer, analysis based on one's **entire** genome. Yes, autosomal + mtDNA + XX or XY.

By then they'll have discovered new things they can test for most likely: epigenetic tests, etc.