Slashdot Mirror


Hunting Disease Origins By Whole-Genome Sequencing

ChocSnorfler writes "James Lupski, a physician-scientist who suffers from a neurological disorder called Charcot-Marie-Tooth, has been searching for the genetic cause of his disease for more than 25 years. Late last year, he finally found it — by sequencing his entire genome. While a number of human genome sequences have been published to date, Lupski's research is the first to show how whole-genome sequencing can be used to identify the genetic cause of an individual's disease."

27 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Can of Worms? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

    With every advancement in figuring out genetic diseases, I can't help but think that the combination of this plus drug testing will lead to genetic discrimination, or at least defamation.

    Plus, even then is there much we -can- do if we figure out something is genetic?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Can of Worms? by WillDraven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe not yet, but it sure is hard to begin fixing something before you know why it's broken.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Can of Worms? by thms · · Score: 2, Informative

      genetic discrimination

      I think even the most coldhearted persons must admit that your genetic makeup is something you cannot influence and which a caring society should insure you from. I don't see much of a problem there, especially since you can point at everyone and ask them with a sharp eye: "Are you sure you don't carry some expensive genetic screwup which can only be fixed by a $250,000 individual cure?"

      Plus, even then is there much we -can- do if we figure out something is genetic?

      Well, if you can derive how e.g. a protein folded wrong you might be able to find a drug which fixes that by attaching to that protein and shutting it down.

      A more megalomaniac idea would be gene therapy: Inserting a retrovirus with a second strand of DNA into the cell.
      That DNA could code for a correct protein sequence. Or, if the original protein sequence is harmful and needs to be suppressed, it could code for interfering RNA, i.e. RNA which intercepts the DNA's RNA and thus disables protein translation. Ah, wetware hacking!

    3. Re:Can of Worms? by virtualXTC · · Score: 2, Informative

      With every advancement in figuring out genetic diseases, I can't help but think that the combination of this plus drug testing will lead to genetic discrimination, or at least defamation. Plus, even then is there much we -can- do if we figure out something is genetic?

      Sad you were modded flamebait for voicing honest concerns. Good thing you were the FP.

      Genetic discrimination is already illegal in the US.

      Understanding that a disease is genetic DOES allow us to do something. Take pompe disease for instance, there are now 2 possible ways of treating it that we were able to derrive from our genetic understanding. The first, and most obvious; make the protein that is deficient in the patients with the disease and administer it to them. The second; now that we know the cause of the disease, find a small molecule that restores function to the mutated protein (or potentially further up stream: allows the mRNA to fold properly).

    4. Re:Can of Worms? by Thng · · Score: 2, Informative
      Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

      from Newscientist: "After more than a decade of political debate, GINA bans health insurers from setting premiums or denying coverage based on the results of genetic tests, as long as customers have no pre-existing disease symptoms. It is also aimed to prevent discrimination in employment decisions."

      Discrimination still could happen, but there appears to be a bit of a framework to work against it.

    5. Re:Can of Worms? by moogied · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, I don't often to get to use the same post twice.. but uh, they passed a law making genetic discrimination illegal in America.

      --
      So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    6. Re:Can of Worms? by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They ARE contaminating the gene pool, and whether you like it or not, they should not be allowed to reproduce. Here's my idea: You want society's help? Get sterilized, and then we'll help you. We won't sterilize you forcefully, but if you want our help, that's our price.

      In the past, weak people died, strong people lived, and eventually that lead us to where we are. Instinct brought us here, and It wasn't the instinct of the weak and diseased.

      We, as a society, can help and fix the diseased, but doing that messes with evolution, effectively shutting it down. In today's society, the weakest, less intelligent and poorly educated reproduce more than the rest of us. Yes, there's a very funny movie about it that gets quoted just a little bit too often.

      So, it's our duty to make up for that. We either stop treating them, stop giving them social help, etc. , or we help them fully, but make sure they don't reproduce.
      It's either that, or face our own destruction a few centuries from now, when most of us will be a hoard of diseased and retarded individuals.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    7. Re:Can of Worms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What if the gene pool that YOU choose to eliminate might save mankind one day?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease
      >Since the gene is incompletely recessive, carriers can produce a few sickled red blood cells, not enough to cause symptoms, but enough to give resistance to malaria.

    8. Re:Can of Worms? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Funny

      What a fucking irony that would be.

    9. Re:Can of Worms? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, maybe we could provide that $250,000 treatment to each other at a much more reasonable price in order to preserve a larger diversity of the gene pool, which is in the long run even better for humanity than forceful sterilization.

    10. Re:Can of Worms? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 3, Funny

      For the bathrooms, we do discriminate based on a specific genetic difference right now.

    11. Re:Can of Worms? by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Diversity is no good if there's no natural selection.

      I'm not a racist, or a white supremacist, or any other crap, ok? To me, racism is utterly stupid. What 'race' you are doesn't have any kind of influence on the kind of person you are, except for the Check republic. In that case, I'm racist. They have the hottest babes in the world, and we need more of their genes (For the well being of our species, off course :D ).

      But I'm genuinely concerned about the neutralizing of natural selection. I'm proud of my heritage. And I'm not talking about my parents, I'm talking about my great grandparents. I'm proud about the Pampas, and the Euskaldunak, and the French, and other people that long long ago are my parents too. And I'm very proud of some hominid that millions of years ago was a hunter-gatherer somewhere in Africa. I'm proud of being the son of some unicellular microorganism that lived in the depths of the oceans at the dawn of life in earth.

      And I'm proud of them, because they all fought and died for us. We are here, because only the best of what was before made it into the future. We are all part of that collective consciousness.

      We have the duty of doing our part in evolution. We have the world for ourselves, for a little while, and then we are gone forever, and we'll put the world in the hands of those that are unborn yet. Our purpose in life, is to make the best of that time we have, to return a better world to that collective consciousness. Only the very best, le crème de la crème, should perpetuate in what will be our next generation. Otherwise, we've failed as a species.

      It's hard to accept, but that doesn't make it any less true.

      If we kill natural selection completely, we are destined to disappear from the face of the planet.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    12. Re:Can of Worms? by thms · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, slashdot. I make one dream-eyed, hopeful, but ultimately naive (I admit) comment and everyone jumps on it. I originally only wanted to comment on the "how to fix it?" question but thought a bit of optimism to prefix that might not harm :)

      On to this comment which irks me:

      [..]contaminating the gene pool [..] Instinct brought us here [..] fix the diseased, but doing that messes with evolution [..] In today's society, the weakest, less intelligent and poorly educated reproduce more than the rest of us [..] make sure they don't reproduce. [..] It's either that, or face our own destruction a few centuries

      What the fuck?! And I mean this in a truly perplexed if slightly disgusted way. Humans are animals, true, but we are the first animals which can transcend that fact. You think that since we come from the mud, we will always stay there. Not much higher than Bacteria there.
      It won't be long and not just treating, but even curing genetic disorders will be possible, i.e. directly fixing them in the germline. Evolution is a really bad method to improve a design unless you are totally lost and don't know where to start. And not only messy, but often cruel to the unwilling participants.

      So on the long run, fuck evolution and our messy DNA, humans are now defined by the sentience which emerged, not by the biological substrate which for now still binds us. We can very well carry our own weight in the future. And before you ask, I am not a follower of the Singularity Ersatz religion, just not a downright pessimist.

      P.S.: Obligatory xkcd about the movie you mentioned and the fatal cultural impact it has: http://xkcd.com/603/

    13. Re:Can of Worms? by dAzED1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      genetic testing allowed me to know that I do indeed have a genetic disorder that causes a lack of an enzyme involved in the processing of l-dopa, causing me to frequently not have enough dopamine in my brain...giving me dopa-responsive dystonia, treated via the same thing Parkinson's suffers use (sinemet).

      That being the case...I'm going to genetically discriminate myself, and get a vasectomy. I'd never wish this upon a child...not when we've since figured out that my father's lifetime non-drug-responsive hypertension is because of the same problem, just presenting differently. Do you have a genetic disorder? Unless you're part of the target audience, don't speak for us ;)

    14. Re:Can of Worms? by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think even the most coldhearted persons must admit that your genetic makeup is something you cannot influence and which a caring society should insure you from.

      The problem is that HR policies don't have hearts at all. The very name Human Resources sounds like a euphemism. Frankly, there are plenty of corporations out there that would happily toss babies into a wood chipper if there was any profit in it.

    15. Re:Can of Worms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The entirety of your argument is based on a logical fallacy that there is some "obligation" that humans have towards evolution, which you keep repeating on and on. It carries with itself the idea that we are entirely capable of understanding the complexity of the ecosystem and we should actively intervene so that we don't "break" it in any way.

      "Diversity is no good if there's no natural selection" - this argument, while it sounds nice and logically founded, is really not much more than a nicely-presented opinion. How do you know that diversity is "no good" if there's no natural selection? For what we know, humans are the first species that has allowed themselves to advance to a level where natural selection does not happen by predators. Which brings me to the point that "there's no natural selection" is an untrue statement - we still suffer from diseases and natural disasters. What's really naive in your argument however, is the fact that we simply don't know where the evolution will lead us as a species. You talk in a way that would suggest you can predict the future, and the way we're acting is "no good" for us and the future generations.

      The irony here is that this inner need to care after the weaker and the sick, the desire to form relationships not based on a materialistic purpose and many other characteristics have allowed Homo sapiens to reach this civilizational and technological level - a level where someone, using a device that showcases the genius of the species, communicates through another medium that showcases the genius of the species, that this approach is wrong and "no good". What you're saying is fundamentally no different than the arguments touted by eugenicists in the twentieth century. It feels comfortable and good telling other people that they should be sterilized, in a way projecting your sense of superiority on them. That is, until it turns out that someone decides you should be sterilized as well.

      Stop trying to decide other's fate based on your false sense of understanding the complexity of nature.

    16. Re:Can of Worms? by Hazelfield · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can't believe this got modded insightful. Even without the racist insinuations, it's just plain wrong.

      First, evolution does not have a purpose, and we surely don't have a "duty of doing our part in evolution". Evolution is just a natural process. Saying we have a duty to evolution makes about as much sense as saying we should stop building airplanes because we're neglecting our duty to gravity.

      Second, the idea that we need to "weed out" the undesired traits in the human species is wrong because evolution does not work that way. Major changes in the genome generally happen within small, isolated populations. With such a huge population as humans on Earth is, evolution will be an extremely slow process. The gene pool will be mixed and mingled and these undesired traits will come and go.

      Third, it's not clear what would represent "good" and "bad" traits (let alone genes) in humans. For example, people suffering from sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria. It would also be extremly difficult and costly to determine which genes are good and which are bad. Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't care. It only cares about if the genes are good enough to let the individual survive and reproduce. For this reason, eugenics is generally considered a pseudoscience.

      Fourth, and I really shouldn't have to mention this, no one in their sane mind wants a government that gets to decide who can reproduce and who can't. If you don't see why this is a bad idea, then maybe YOU should refrain from breeding because we surely don't want anyone who lacks imagination to reproduce, right?

    17. Re:Can of Worms? by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have never heard such complete bullshit in my life.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  2. Sequence plus a lot of prior work by jfengel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your genome has a lot of differences from the reference genome. They narrowed down the differences based on a lot of previous work discovering genes linked to the disorder.

    Only then were they able to zero in on precisely what gene in his specific genome caused the problem, and confirm it by testing other family members.

  3. Ambiguous parsing by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's this Hunting disease they talk about?

    1. Re:Ambiguous parsing by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2, Funny

      You ever been to Alabama in the winter?

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:Ambiguous parsing by sjames · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also known as "Cheney's disease"

  4. Re:scary part of TFA by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, itd suck to have drugs individually tailored to your genes. They'd work like, way better. Plus you could get information on maldies that you might come across. Hell you may be able to work pre-emptively to avoid getting them.

    Honestly there are tons of reasons why this is a GOOD THING.

  5. Re:scary part of TFA by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People in the sequencing biz talk about the "thousand dollar genome" as kind of the magic number, and the consensus is that we can expect to get there in five years or so. At that point, yes, it will be a routine part of everyone's medical record. As for discrimination, the best we can do is guard against it; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) is a very good start. There is no way in hell that we are going to turn our backs on the enormous medical potential of cheap, nearly universal sequencing because of fears cobbled together -- as most anti-genetics rants seem to be -- out of massive ignorance and half-remembered ideas picked up from Frankenstein, Jurassic Park, and Gattaca.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  6. Re:scary part of TFA by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long before sequencing becomes part of a routine physical exam, and having the disease-prone genes becomes a pre-existing condition for health insurance purposes?

    That depends.

    If the Democrats manage to pass health care reform, there will no longer be any "pre-existing conditions" so the question is moot.

    If the Republicans manage to stop health care reform, it'll take 10 minutes.

    (Actually there's a law against using genetic tests to set insurance rates, but I wanted to get a little snark in)

  7. I'd like to offer my genome for sequencing by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If anyone can make a credible offer to sequence my genome, drop me a line at mdcrawford at gmail dot com and I'll arrange for you to get a sample of my DNA. I will gladly sign an informed consent that would permit you to release the lot of it publicly - you need not be concerned about issues of confidentiality. Really I would prefer it that way.

    I have two distinctly different mental illnesses, a neurological condition that affects my brain, and a circadian rhythm disorder that more or less makes it impossible for me to hold any kind of nine-to-five job.

    I have Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder, which is just like being Schizophrenic and Manic Depressive at the same time. That was diagnosed in 1985. I also have Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. That's quite a different thing than the more well-known Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCPD vs OCD). I was told of the diagnosis in 1994 but I have reason to believe the diagnosis was made long before, but my therapist chose to wait many years to give me the bad news.

    The neurological condition is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. I got that diagnosis in 2008. ADHD isn't taken very seriously by a lot of people, with some believing that it's not a real illness. It's no joking matter: I got the diagnosis in a psychiatric hospital where I committed myself rather than go off the Golden Gate Bridge as a result of my profound inability to focus on my work. I had been begging all manner of medical and mental health practitioners for help with it for ten years, but none of them had the first clue as to how to help me. It was only the shrink in 2008 who was able to make a real difference.

    My circadian rhythm disorder is Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome. It is the main reason I am a software engineer - my degree is in Physics, and not Computer Science. When I noticed that many of my programmer friends worked at night, I figured that being a coder would be the only way I would ever be able to hold a real job. All of my life I have slept during the day and stayed up all night. My mother said I was this way even when I was a newborn in the hospital.

    My reason for wanting my genome sequenced is not at all to help myself, but to help others with my conditions. Besides understanding my various illnesses, I also want the medical community to figure out why I have done so well despite what would normally be a profound disability:

    It is very, very rare for someone with Schizoaffective Disorder to live independently, let alone hold any kind of real job. I have a degree in Physics and have been a coder for twenty-two years. But most who share my diagnosis have to live off the disability check, be cared for by their families, spend their lives in institutions, or survive somehow on the streets, tormented by despair and madness.

    There was a time when I was so hopelessly in the grip of my delusions that when God Almighty Himself sent me visions in the sky, I would photograph them. But when the pictures came back from the developer without my visions in them, I figured it was due to my inexperience as a photographer and not because those hallucinations were the products of my own demented imagination.

    My hope is that by having my genome sequenced, I might not only ease the sufferring of others, but prevent a lot of otherwise needless suicides.

    I am absolutely serious: mdcrawford at gmail dot com

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  8. Speaking as an insider by dorpus · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm getting my PhD in a statistical genetics program.

    The quality of "newly discovered genes" in the literature is very, very poor. Any scientific "discovery" should be replicated by other researchers, but that is not being done. Negative results rarely get published. Since we have tens of thousands of genes, one can find any number of genes that have a "significant association" with a given condition.

    In reality, many diseases are known to have multiple origins. The same disease could be caused by entirely different genes in different people. And that's assuming it is a genetic condition, as opposed to other causes. Researchers have spent decades looking for genes that cause diabetes, but there is increasing evidence that diabetes is really caused by viral infections. In particular, type I diabetes was assumed to be genetic, but there is a fairly large amount of evidence that it is caused by viruses such as Coxsackie B4. The incidence of type 1 diabetes is increasing throughout the world, which cannot be explained by genetics.

    To dispel a couple of other myths, genetic diseases are not always recessive. Many of them are dominant. Also, "bad" genes do not always get selected out of the gene pool; diseases that cause problems later in life, such as Alzheimer's, heart disease, Huntington's, happen after reproductive age and so there is no selection pressure.