With technology moving on as it does, patenting single genes for use in targeted tests will soon become pointless. In a few years (it is happening already), exome sequencing, followed by variant confirmation via Sanger sequencing (directly sequencing the gene, not using a patented kit) will be the normal way to do diagnostics. Nobody will be paying for a single (or even multi) gene testing kit.
Now, if companies decide to try and patent entire exomes (or genomes), things may turn nasty.
I apologise for the use of the word 'idiotic', I must have been in a bad mood. My point however, is still valid. This treatment is not a cure, but it is true that it may alleviate symptoms to the point of extending life to allow successful procreation. However, (speaking as a father) I would not want to risk any child of mine having this disease, even if this treatment was successful, any male child would still likely die before I did.
As to your final point, I would tend to disagree. Who decides what is 'good' for the human race?
This could increase the rate of this disorder in the whole human race.
Idiotic thing to say for an X-linked disease such as DMD. Females can carry one copy of the gene without showing any symptoms, therefore natural selection cannot breed this disorder out of the population. Males with the disorder generally die before they are old enough to father a child.
The "long tail" principle doesn't seem to fit this idea, since there are only a small number of experts in any gene, rather than the large number that the authors of the PLOS article seem to think. I also believe curated gene annotation has been tried before with the Genome DataBase (GDB), which has recently folded.
Nice try guys, but I think this is doomed to fail due to the time pressures that most experts who would be able to contribute to this wiki operate under.
OK - so first of all 23andme et al do not search for "abnormal genes" - they look for common polymorphisms present in human DNA sequences. These are not abnormal, simply different.
Secondly, rs numbers found in association with disease are practically valueless without the underlying functional data, plus replication of the association in different populations. For Zeus' sake, bear this in mind if you ever get one of these tests!
Slashdot Mirror
"publish or parish" Happens all the time. I know plenty of researchers who have left academia to pursue a career in the church.
You aren't using it right. You are supposed to spin it around and throw it up in the air to keep it cool. It's a design feature.
With technology moving on as it does, patenting single genes for use in targeted tests will soon become pointless. In a few years (it is happening already), exome sequencing, followed by variant confirmation via Sanger sequencing (directly sequencing the gene, not using a patented kit) will be the normal way to do diagnostics. Nobody will be paying for a single (or even multi) gene testing kit.
Now, if companies decide to try and patent entire exomes (or genomes), things may turn nasty.
My 2 cents (or pennies, where I hail from).
As to your final point, I would tend to disagree. Who decides what is 'good' for the human race?
Idiotic thing to say for an X-linked disease such as DMD. Females can carry one copy of the gene without showing any symptoms, therefore natural selection cannot breed this disorder out of the population. Males with the disorder generally die before they are old enough to father a child.
Modded +5 informative? Can I borrow your TARDIS please?
What exactly do you have against cockroaches?
FYI I think you mean Apes - but why stop there? I say go for the evolutionary jugular - the Amoebas. After all, 'pirates' are pond-life right?
Quick, somebody report a bug to Microsoft. Free Cell and Hearts need a patch!
This story is about Brits - we all have "mental health issues" over here. We call it eccentricity.
Nice try guys, but I think this is doomed to fail due to the time pressures that most experts who would be able to contribute to this wiki operate under.
OK - so first of all 23andme et al do not search for "abnormal genes" - they look for common polymorphisms present in human DNA sequences. These are not abnormal, simply different. Secondly, rs numbers found in association with disease are practically valueless without the underlying functional data, plus replication of the association in different populations. For Zeus' sake, bear this in mind if you ever get one of these tests!