23&Me Salivary Tests

[Journeyman]

Hi folks,

I recently received my 23&Me genetic test results which I promptly put through the Genetic Genie conversion site to get info on my Methylation/Detox profile. I'm particularly interested in any potential blockages in my methylation cycle that might explain why I've never had the level of mood or functioning that many of my peers have had, and which has caused me great frustration in my life.

I've already been posting my results on a different forum to which I've been pointed at a link which questions the validity of 23&Me and their salivary method of testing. The crux of the message is that the only reliable way to get your nutrigenomic profile is to use blood testing, and a few people have confirmed that they've had both tests done and that the salivary one was different to the blood one. I'm still waiting to hear what lab they used (perhaps it wasn't such a reliable one?)

Either way I want to get some quality advice because as you can appreciate I'm basing my supplement choices and therefore any potential to turn my life around on the outcome of the 23&Me salivary results. I need to know how reliable they are. Any advice you can give would be appreciated - particularly if you've had both types of tests done and how they might have differed..

Looking forward to your advice..

Kind Regards
Journeyman

 

[kday]

I have not seen evidence or genomes to support the idea that 23andMe is innacurate. I've seen 23andMe results and Nutrigenomics side by side numerous times.

I've seen a number of people that have a "no call" for an SNP or two. This means the chip was unable to determine their alleles.

The Illumina chip that is comparable to the chip 23andMe shows a 99.946% concordance rate and about a >99.6% concordance rate between different direct to consumer testing companies. The call rates of the chip are >99%, but the real world call rate seems to be >97% depending on the quality of the sample.

This info is supported by studies looking DTC testing (including 23andMe) and not personal anecdotes.

http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/3/518.full
http://superfund.berkeley.edu/pdf/35.pdf

 

[Journeyman]

Not a great number of replies but thanks Kday - sometimes its quality over quantity, and in this case theres an awful lot of the former. You've backed it up with those links to the actual research that backs up what you're saying too which is confidence inspiring.

Its good to see that theres great consistency between the labs, and so there should be given the points made in the starting paragraphs of the School of pathology Pensylvania study (first link paper) Many people will make vital supplement decisions based on their results and place great expectations on what can turn out to be a significant financial investment in their future.

Thanks again and I look forward to your continued input on mine and others posts!