1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Give ME the Money
Graham McPhee spells out some of the cold, hard facts about the dismal state of ME research and politics, and has some suggestions as to what we can do about it ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

FDA Orders 23andMe to Stop Providing Genetic Analysis.

Discussion in 'Genetic Testing and SNPs' started by wdb, Nov 25, 2013.

  1. ggingues

    ggingues $10 gift code at iHerb GAS343 of $40

    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes:
    976
    Concord, NH
    It doesn't. That is why we need big govt to "protect" us from our stupid mistakes, because we all know that gov't doesn't make mistakes and/or hinder advances in science via regulations etc..

    GG
     
    Waverunner and Iquitos like this.
  2. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes:
    10,223
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    Your recollection is incorrect. The only differences were between different companies, as you found in your files.
    Your recollection is wrong again. The FDA only got involved because the genetic data was being interpreted. Their decision did not involve or impact upon the reporting of raw data. The FDA did not even claim that the interpretation was inaccurate. It was objected to solely because it was interpretation.
     
    maryb, Waverunner, Sea and 4 others like this.
  3. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes:
    5,253
    Sth Australia
    Its as Valentijn said. The raw data is recognised as being correct, hence why that is still available. They just didnt trust the interputations.. which is stupid when 23andME also had a five star scale thing in which showed how much such or how little each interputation was based on, so that people could make the decision for themselves what they wished to take in account and if one wanted to take into account an interputation which science could later prove wrong as it wasnt based on blind big studies but may of only been shown by a small study, that kind of thing only got a 1 star out of 5.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
    maryb, Waverunner, Ema and 1 other person like this.
  4. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes:
    5,253
    Sth Australia
    correct. I have breast cancer in my family and this test came out saying I was at a decreased risk with the genes they tested. It is relieving to know I dont have the common genes which cause it but will that make me think I wont get breast cancer... certainly not as it is clear there could be other genes involved in this..

    Governments are forgetting that we are in the age of information and people nowdays are so much smarter over health things esp those who seek out sites like 23andME as they have independantly taken their own health issues into their hands.
     
    Iquitos and WillowJ like this.
  5. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes:
    5,253
    Sth Australia
    I know nothing about the case being talked of here but I do think that it is possible that a SNP could do different things in different races. SNPs can work together with other SNPs and some ethnicities may commonly have another SNP which can interact or rule out an issue a certain SNP is causing. (i havent read this but it would be a common sense thing if you think about it and how some SNPs can be better or worst in presence of other ones).
     
    nandixon likes this.
  6. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes:
    5,253
    Sth Australia
    It really depends on what you want to do.. if you want to find out stuff about your methylation, its just a matter of putting the raw data into genetic genie which is quite easy. If ME/CFS patients can do that without issues, anyone can!
     
  7. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes:
    10,223
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    Exactly - it's still coming down to SNPs (or environment, diet, etc) not "ethnicity". Attributing differences to ethnicity is ultimately imprecise and sloppy. And in most cases, the results are the same for every ethnicity anyhow, so labeling ethnic groups is generally pointless and confusing.
     
  8. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes:
    5,253
    Sth Australia
    Ethnicity is about inheritance and we inherit SNPs.
     
  9. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes:
    10,223
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    Yes, but people in one ethnic group can inherit SNPs which are much more common in a different ethnic group, etc. Hence the ultimate factor is still SNPs, and ethnicity is just a rather vague and imprecise term in that context.

    There is a great deal of variation in every ethnic group, and a great deal of overlap between very different ethnic groups. The ultimate factor is always the SNPs, and being a member of a specific ethnic group in no way guarantees that someone has the common SNPs for that group.
     
  10. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes:
    2,851
    WA, USA
    I think what tania is talking about is gene expression, which is indeed affected by other portions of the genome.

    However, ethnicity would not play much of a role in differences caused by other SNPs affecting gene expression, as only "a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies" are involved in differences between populations.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  11. nandixon

    nandixon Senior Member

    Messages:
    146
    Likes:
    143
    That's not correct according to my research. I've been meaning to write about this for a while and so have started a separate thread entitled: "Importance of ethnicity and allele frequency in determining disease-causing SNPs" (http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...cy-in-determining-disease-causing-snps.30710/)

    Here's an excerpt from what I wrote:

    "In summary, the scientific literature is clear that ethnicity can be a critical factor when attempting to narrow down what potential SNP or SNPs might cause or contribute to an illness, and that an ethnically appropriate genetic database should be used to avoid false negative results for SNPs that may be disease-causing/contributing and of lower frequency in one ethnic group but benign and of higher frequency in other ethnic groups.

    There are dozens of research articles that have been published that emphasise this. Below are just a handful:"
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2014
    barbc56 likes this.
  12. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes:
    10,223
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    Are any of those alleles which supposedly show a different effect having a big impact? Sometimes there are different results between ethnicities in different studies or internally in a single study. But there are also often differences in different studies of the same ethnicity. When the effect size is pretty small, it's not unusual for one study to get a positive result, another gets the opposite result, and a third gets a null result.
     
  13. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes:
    973
    A blogger who writes about "mathematical curiosities" sent samples to 23andme two different times. Using stasticual analysis his results are below. But it's important to keep the first quote in mind.

    .
    http://roadontime.blogspot.com/2010/07/23andme-snps-so-nice-they-call-them.htm

    http://roadontime.blogspot.com/2010/05/my-spitting-image-23andme-error-rate.html

    Here are his other blogs related to 23andme which go into greater detail about the statistics.

    http://roadontime.blogspot.com/search/label/Sharing
     
    Valentijn likes this.
  14. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes:
    10,223
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    @barbc56 - Another potential cause of different results can be that different cells sometimes have different mutations. It's not something I've looked into specifically, but I've come across mentions of it in cancers as well as in non-pathogenic circumstances. Though usually the differences are in different parts of the body, it's not always the case. But no idea how often it happens.

    And I can confirm that 23andMe definitely does have systematic errors, where they report 100% of users as having a very rare genotype. I've only seen one, but someone else who noticed it commented on complete lack of responsiveness from 23andMe in fixing the error or even responding to it - maybe because that chip was designed and owned by a 3rd party, and it wasn't something they could do anything about themselves? It's not on the new chip now, so I guess it's not really an issue anymore :p

    At any rate, 99.9936% accuracy is extremely impressive, especially for the price. Thanks for finding that data and sharing it!
     
  15. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes:
    973
    Hi @Valentijn

    Where did you get the figure 99,39......% accuracy? From what I have read in the above mentioned articles the test is far from that accurate.

    I'll check again as I think there was percentage mentioned.

    Barb
     
  16. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    6,716
    Likes:
    10,223
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    It was what someone got from sending in two samples, as you quoted above.
     
  17. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes:
    2,851
    WA, USA
    I agree that studies should not assume their results apply to all populations.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page