News Link: Analysis Of More Than 50,000 Genomes Hints At New Disease-Causing Genes
It wasn't that long ago that the very first human genome was sequenced (April 14, 2003), in what was a very expensive endeavor (the total project cost about 2.3 billion dollars, while the genome itself cost upwards of 100 million) involving a process called shotgun sequencing. Technology for genomic sequencing has increased by leaps and bounds since those days, and with it, the cost has drastically come down. Today it costs about $1000 to sequence (at least roughly) a human genome. As the price has come way way down (due to next-gen sequencing technologies like those done by illumina and pacific biosciences), a significantly greater number of genomes have been sequenced. People have been asking, " What is the point in sequencing more than one whole genome?" Thinking that the amount of data was just too great to deal with, and extract any useful information.
Well it seems all of this genomic data is finally beginning to pay out dividends. Researchers have described in a publication in the journal Science their identification of new genes which are potential evidence for various disease states. The study discussed not only common disease markers such as BRCA1 (a potential marker for breast cancer, and a select number of other cancers), but also new genetic markers for things like heart disease among others.
The researchers further explored the data to see whether or not the people whose genomes were being examined were being treated medically for the diseases which they have a genetic predisposition for, and found that in a relatively high number of cases they were not. The example provided in the write up was that 228 cases were found where the patients had a genetic condition causing elevated LDL levels (this condition is called familial hypercholesterolemia) the researchers reported that only 58% of these patients were on statins (cholesterol lowering medications) and less than 50% were receiving a sufficiently high dose.
As whole genome analysis becomes cheaper and cheaper, we may soon be approaching the point where each of us may want to provide our doctors with this information. We may be able to identify conditions, or genetic markers for increased likelihood of developing health issues long before they would be detectable by standard blood screening, through use of these big-data genetic analyses. It's a fascinating, and perhaps troubling path that our increased technological prowess is guiding us along. One which we may personally have to decide whether to embark upon much sooner than many may realize.
For more information check out this brief summary article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/analysis-more-50000-genomes-hints-new-disease-causing-genes
Or dive into the primary publication here:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6319/aaf6814
If you like my work, please consider giving me a follow: @justtryme90. I am a PhD holding biochemist with a love for science. My future science blog posts will cover a range of topics in the biology/chemistry fields.
Thank you for your support of my work!
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Dec 28. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $9.71 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Dec 28 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Today doctors have 0 experience in Nutrition when they graduate. There is no incentive to pursue Nutrition over medication/treatment. Nuff said about providing these people with your information as they have the capacity to make a informed decision even.
runs over to webmd to read on vaccine efficacy and say the mantra that radiation and chemotherapy is a treatment
That's fine, you can think that. I will continue to trust my physicians, as they are the only thing keeping me alive.
Consider these:
Chemotherapy and radiation, are treatments for cancer. At the same time
vaccines are purported as effective and relatively safe when the reality is that there hasn't been any evidence of vaccine efficacy or effort to thoroughly study it.
With those two inconvenient realities, consider the risk that comes with trusting people associated with these attitudes: cannot decide if radiation and chemotherapy, known as cancer causing, are good or bad, I mean these people, the American Cancer Society calls them carcinogens. Those people who are "keeping" you alive, could have an agenda, as the vast majority cannot expound on diet and lifestyle, but will prescribe medications which have little to no science to back their claims up and even less to study the long term effects or simply to challenge the claims.. You can trust them to keep you alive, as if they are in charge of some magical knowledge, as if they have that kind of expertise, and when challenged with things like "chemotherapy and radiation are used to cure/treat cancer" while these two things are categorized as carcinogens. Isn't that insanity itself? It's not a comfortable subject: are they willingly deceiving and manipulating you?
Observe this:
Follow the link to cancer.org and see if you can find information about the very first statement that website makes about radiation and cancer:
Please consider that the large part of these people have no interest in healing, only treatment, please research positions contrary to your beliefs and worldviews, I have challenged your attitude
You are not thinking rationally or analytically. You haven't challenged anything. I don't have anything to discuss with you as your mind is set in a bad path and I accept that you deserve to follow it as you see fit.
So it's irrational to consider that the people who say "radiation and chemotherapy is treatment" while the reality is that the same people know that both radiation and chemotherapy are cancer causing? Or would it be not logical to question the motives of these people?
If those two lines of thought are irrational you could point it out exactly what, how, and why it is so. If then that line of questioning isn't a contrary position to "I will continue to trust them", then we must not agree on the meaning of the phrase "haven't challenged anything."
You can continue to trust what you wish, regardless of my "bad path" and what I deserve, even in the face of evidence and common sense, and hardly illogical/not rational/without sense.
Well it all comes down to probabilities. Of course radiation and chemotherapy are toxic, and can most assuredly cause cancer. However they do kill cells effectively, and in the case of chemotheraputics, rapidly proliferating ones.
If you have cancer then your probability of imminent death is exceedingly high, in these situations being treated with a method to kill the cancer increases your likleyhood of survival. The probability of additional cancer from the treatment is outweighed (significantly) by the benefit of removing the current cancer.
Your line of thinking is far too narrow, you are not taking the larger picture into consideration and thinking like that is a bad path. Logic goes out the window and you can't see the forest for the trees.
Again you haven't challenged anything, because your thought process in this case is faulty.
Your "question the motivation of everyone" shtick is something I see with a lot of people searching for some sort of grand conspiracy. The world just isn't as convoluted as you think. A lot of anguish can be removed by just applying a modicum of logic to your thoughts.