23andMe Plans New Genetic Test on Risk of Getting Diabetes (fortune.com)

In an update to its genetic test, 23andMe is trying to make it easier for people to combat type 2 diabetes. From a report: When customers now purchase the company's $199 Health & Ancestry Service test, they'll get their saliva screened for type 2 diabetes, among a variety of other health conditions, the company said in a statement on Sunday. The test won't say for sure whether a person has diabetes or will definitely get it, but the results will provide insight into whether someone is at risk of becoming diabetic. According to 23andMe, its test to determine diabetes risk comes from an analysis of data the company collected from more than 2.5 million customers who opted in to its research. Scientists evaluated the user data and created a system of scoring a person's likelihood of getting type 2 diabetes based on more than 1,000 genetic factors.

Comments

Would like to see the peer reviewed publication

[XXongo]

This is a fascinating use of big data, but I'd really like to see this work peer-reviewed for publication

Re:Would like to see the peer reviewed publication

[EvilSS]

Doesn't look like it's published yet, but here is the paper. https://permalinks.23andme.com/pdf/23_19-Type2Diabetes_March2019.pdf.

Diabetes is scary

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to think that it was a disease that came in 2 forms:

* Those born with a known genetic anomaly. (Type I)
* Dumbfucks who can't stop stuffing their mouths with food. (Type II)

It turns out, though, that I was wrong; while it's true that there are a lot of dumbfucks out there, people don't really know what causes Type I diabetes—it just appears to have some kind of heritable quality to it. Yikes!

Re:Diabetes is scary

[magarity]

* Dumbfucks who can't stop stuffing their mouths with food. (Type II)

Sorry, no, while type 2 is brought on by poor eating habits, it is not from inability to stop stuffing one's mouth. Yes, fat people have it but they would probably even if they just less of the crappy food they prefer. It is high carb and/or high sugar ratio food with lack of exercise. Alcohol in particular has a lot of the kind of sugar bad for people at risk. It's not the being fat that does it, it's the kind of food that people who end up fat tend to eat.

Re:Diabetes is scary

[Oswald McWeany]

I used to think that it was a disease that came in 2 forms:

* Those born with a known genetic anomaly. (Type I)
* Dumbfucks who can't stop stuffing their mouths with food. (Type II)

It turns out, though, that I was wrong; while it's true that there are a lot of dumbfucks out there, people don't really know what causes Type I diabetes—it just appears to have some kind of heritable quality to it. Yikes!

Regarding type II though- it's not just what food they eat.
You can have two obese men of the same height and weight that eat a similar diet.

Man 1 has diabetes. Man 2 does not.

Both of them could probably lose the diabetes by losing weight so it's not Type I, but it isn't just from being obese either. Some people are more genetically predisposed to getting diabetes even if they are not necessarily of Type I.

Re:Diabetes is scary

[_merlin]

There's also gestational diabetes, which is a temporary thing that happens to pregnant women. My wife got this the first time, and it really scared her. Before that she used to give me shit and tell me I'd get diabetes from my eating habits. She got really strict with her eating and exercise the whole time she was pregnant. The second time she responded better to the glucose metabolism test, but they'd changed the threshold, so they still told her she had borderline gestational diabetes, and she had to do the whole testing regime again.

Re:Diabetes is scary

[havana9]

The fact is that all types of diabetes have a genetic root. Some studies found that in families with people with Type 1 (or LADA) there were also people with Type 2. By the way eating too much of carbohydrates doesn't cause diabetes because there are a lot of fat people without diabetes. The problem with Type 2 is that is a slowly evolving condition and could pass undetected for years, add to this that having an healthy food habit will reduce the effects of diabetes, T2 could pass undetected. T1 on the other hand has a clear and fast onset. Sometime even a LADA, because it's slower to evolve could be misdiagnosed for T2.
And some people by the way could get MODY type diabetes that are also different.
I have also to add that the dietary information one could gather from media and even doctors and nurses is misleading or plain wrong. Like the story that eggs are a bad food, it's false because the test were made on rabbits, or the lactose free and gluten free sold for healthier alternatives, or low fat version of put that are loaded with sugars and flavours because otherwise they are tasting like crap.
Another this to note is that modern heavily processed foods using highly refined sugars and grain are less healthier than the same food made at home or made like 40 years ago.

and face scanning in airports is evil?

[the_skywise]

I realize this is voluntary but this kind of genetic record keeping and analysis will not be kept private. There's already several stories out there of crimes being solved because of genetic matching in Ancestry.com. It wasn't even the person that did the crime but their close relative!

Re:and face scanning in airports is evil?

[weeboo0104]

Bingo. The data will either be sold or "leaked" to the health insurance community. If you want to manage your health, do so under the guidance of a physician or nurse practitioner. Ancestry companies have no business keeping health data.

Great for roughly zero percent of type 2 cases

[Drunkulus]

A thousand genetic markers doesn't mean f*ckall when excess BMI and physical inactivity are the known causes.

Re:Great for roughly zero percent of type 2 cases

[Locke2005]

Eat fructose, not glucose.

Re:Great for roughly zero percent of type 2 cases

[angel'o'sphere]

Exactly ...

Basically all cases of diabetes I'm aware off are caused by wrong diet.

Re:Great for roughly zero percent of type 2 cases

[Krishnoid]

You probably want to use the waist-to-height ratio instead.

Re:Great for roughly zero percent of type 2 cases

[havana9]

This is simply not true. It's a genetic predisposition, that is easily triggered by an high carbohydrate diet. The fact there are morbidly obese people without diabetes is sign that isn't the cause. On the contrary people with pre-diabetes and reactive hypoglycaemia couls suffer for increased hunger and overeat.

Re:Great for roughly zero percent of type 2 cases

[Drunkulus]

Interesting argument. By that logic, we can also conclude that smoking does not cause lung cancer, because there are people who have chain smoked for decades but do not have lung cancer. I will agree, however, that diabetes is triggered by a genetic disposition: evolving in a world of scarcity gave us a survival instinct to stuff ourselves full of anything edible, especially meats, fat, carbs, salt, and sugar. Of course, everyone on the planet shares this genetic disposition. There, I just saved you $199.

but under gop health care can be used to blacklist

[Joe_Dragon]

but under gop health care can be used to blacklist people.

Kinda not the issue

[nanospook]

For most, its not really genetic, it's dietary. It's like being a heavy smoker and not being able to run up the stairs anymore. it's dietary.. now people will be told they are low risk while their doctor's will tell them their sugar is now high..

Easy to

[houghi]

They just need to look at where you live. When they the just add a disclaimer on their website, they should be able to get the 50% accyracy they get now.

Yeah. Look up the YouTube video where identical rwins did the test and looked deeper into these websites and what real DNA researchers think of it.

In short, if you look at the highest reliability, then suddenly you are not "Irish, Scottish and Spanish" but European.

I will just listen to my real doctor. (Listen, not follow his advice)

Re:not long ago insulin was like 3$ a vial

[the_skywise]

That's because the demand has skyrocketed.

Re:but under gop health care can be used to blackl

[lgw]

I don't think it matters which party has control. The GOP would let private insurers raise your rates or deny you coverage. Under Medicare for All it would be seen as something to deny care for someone because the total cost of their care would outweigh their benefit to society.

I don't think people talking about "Medicare for All" understand how Medicare works: most people also have private insurance. Medicare is not an alternative to medical insurance.

The jokes on them!

[Locke2005]

I already have diabetes!

Re:Hilarious, since diabetes is not hereditary

[Locke2005]

No, Type 2 is NOT self-inflicted, many people have a genetic predisposition to diabetes. I suffered from hypoglycemia for 30 years before it became hyperglycemia... so how is my diabetes self-inflicted when I never ate sugar because it would cause my blood sugar to plummet to the point I passed out within an hour of eating it?

Re:but under gop health care can be used to blackl

[lgw]

Huh? So, you get no coverage with Medicare unless you have private insurance? Medicare isn't the primary payor? Can I then say that United Health isn't an alternative to Humana because I have secondary coverage through my spouse?

The billing is ... complicated. Really, it's a mess sometimes, depending on the care provider. The patient might have just Medicare, or Medicare+Medigap, or Medicare Advantage (which is private insurance that uses Medicare as the re-insurer). Providers don't always sort that out correctly, especially if they don't primarily deal with the elderly.

But very few people only have Medicare. The normal thing unless you're very poor (or very rich, I guess) is either Medigap or Medicare Advantage. Most people who are "on Medicare" also have to deal with a private insurance company, in practice.

So, for most people in practice, it's not "Medicare instead of private insurance", it's "Medicare and private insurance". Instead of the paperwork advantage of single payer, it's the worst of both worlds.

Genetics vs environment

[manu0601]

Genetics does not tell all, for many diseases, environment is even more important. Eat too much carbs, exercise too little, and you will get type 2 diabetes, no genetic test needed for that forecast.

Re:Genetics vs environment

[havana9]

Wrong... a genetic predisposition has a role on diabetes development. There are fat people without diabetes and slim people that got type 2 diabetes. Eating too much refined carbohydrates could cause reactive hypoglycaemia that in turn cause more hunger.

Re:but under gop health care can be used to blackl

[BytePusher]

Or since society as a whole carries the burden of treating diabetes, we’d renegotiate insulin prices to match the cost of production plus some premium. As it is, as the medical industrial complex has merged with debt markets and bankruptcy is no longer accessible due to BPACPA, the supply demand curve is in a divide by zero situation. Pharma literally charges as much as they can get away with while avoiding triggering a public revolution against them. Likewise, if access to life saving medicine was a human right in America, and the profit motive for life-by-subscription removed, we would pour tons of money into curing any disease that was relatively expensive to treat. As is, pharma has zero motivation to cure anything and it’s not going to change until we collectively decide all Americans deserve better.

Diet

[logangrog130]

If you sustain a healthy diet right from the start, you will never have diabetes. It's not an inhabited disease and limiting yourself on sweets and junk food is already half of the success. If you still looking into diet, try for lch tp gym cho nam and see how this will improve your health in nearest future.