It is game over for 23andMe, and rightly so

by A Cecile Jw Janssens, The Conversation
DNA peddling needs to be banned. Credit: home_of_chaos

The market for personal genome services is facing a reality check. While the most prominent and innovative company 23andMe has flourished so far, in the past few years many of its competitors have gone out of business. Now, with the latest warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the rest of the genome testing industry may be counting its days too. This is because 23andMe has failed to provide scientific evidence for their genetic tests and the FDA has urged them in a public letter to halt the marketing of their services until further notice.

The FDA treats genetic testing as a "medical device", and it wants all such devices to meet high quality standards. In this the FDA is right. 23andMe provides information that may lead its users to self-medicate, which, if based on faulty information can lead to serious adverse effects. The FDA does not mind if people would like to know what their DNA sequence is, but it is concerned about the interpretation of that data by 23andMe.

The FDA's letter is unlikely to have surprised the people at 23andMe. They acknowledge their own concern in their Terms of Service. They are also aware of the limited predictive ability of their tests for . 23andMe follows scientific progress in genetic risk prediction research closely, and by now they must have realised that the promise of personal genome services has faded.

In 2009, when the company first filed for marketing authorisation of their service, the future of genetic prediction looked very bright. The discovery of genetic markers for common diseases had just started to take off. Each issue of Nature Genetics, the top journal for scientific discoveries in genetics and genomics, reported new markers for different diseases. It seemed global collaborations would soon rapidly unravel the genetic origins of disease.

But the reality appeared more complex.

Genomics researchers caught the bigger fish first, as new markers had increasingly smaller effects on disease risk. By now, only four years later, many scientific studies have investigated the predictive ability of risk models similar to those on which 23andMe's tests are based. Their results have been mostly discouraging, even though researchers have never used that word. Genetic markers are generally unable to predict risk of common diseases, and adding more markers to risk models does not improve their predictive ability that much.

The results of these studies are no surprise: most of them have investigated risk predictions that are based on relatively few genetic markers. For instance, 23andMe uses only 15 markers to predict the risk of , 11 for type-2 diabetes, two for melanoma and obesity, and one for esophageal and stomach cancer. These numbers are much lower than the dozens that have already been discovered. Predictive ability can be good only if markers have a lot of impact on , such as in and several autoimmune diseases.

Champions of the genetic medicine revolution could have been warned by looking at the degree of "heritability" of diseases. The lower this percentage, the less predictive the test can become. 23andMe discloses these estimates:

Heritability of melanoma is estimated at around 20%; type-2 diabetes at 26%; colorectal, esophageal and stomach cancer all around 30%; coronary heart disease between 39% and 56%; and type-1 diabetes between 72% and 88%.

But what does this mean? The high heritability of type-1 diabetes means that genes play a dominant role in causing the disease. If scientists manage to unravel all for type-1 diabetes, a genetic test will be able to predict with high accuracy if a person will get diabetes.

Unfortunately, due to all the complex interactions between the markers, this full unravelling is impossible. The number of interactions is probably so high that every patient will have his or her own unique complex cause of disease. And what has never happened cannot be identified or predicted by big data.

Advances in genome science will improve what tests offer, but these improvements will be small. While the hope is based on big data, the reality is that most diseases are simply not genetic enough. Other risk factors such as diet, body weight, smoking, exercise and stress are too important. And big data cannot change the biology of diseases – it will not make them more genetic.

That is why genetic testing for common diseases will never become as predictive as champions of hope.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US tells 23andMe to halt sales of genetic test

Nov 25, 2013

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is ordering genetic test maker 23andMe to halt sales of its personalized DNA test kits, saying the company has failed to show that the technology is backed by science.

Recommended for you

Changes in scores of genes contribute to autism risk

Oct 29, 2014

Small differences in as many as a thousand genes contribute to risk for autism, according to a study led by Mount Sinai researchers and the Autism Sequencing Consortium (ASC), and published today in the journal Nature.

Dozens of genes associated with autism in new research

Oct 29, 2014

Two major genetic studies of autism, led in part by UC San Francisco scientists and involving more than 50 laboratories worldwide, have newly implicated dozens of genes in the disorder. The research shows ...

Genetic link to kidney stones identified

Oct 29, 2014

A new breakthrough could help kidney stone sufferers get an exact diagnosis and specific treatment after genetic links to the condition were identified.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jim4321
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2013


23andme identifies the alleles for roughly one million snps (single nucleotide polymorphisms) for $99. They are very clear that this information is not to be used for self diagnosis. Their recommendation for problematic alleles (i.e. homozygous zz for alpha1 antitrypsin) is that you go to your doctor and have a specific confirmatory test done and seek his/her advice for treatment. 23andme just provides their customers with information. The fda wants to shut them down because some might use the information unwisely. If the fda is sucessful it seems that the cost of accessing your genetic information will soar from $99 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is this a good thing?.
matt2001
5 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2013
I am a retired physician, and I was skeptical of the information, but I saw that the director for NIH had done the test and felt that it was worthwhile. I did the test, as I was concerned about Alzheimer's Disease. This is what I've found (me and family members):

1. I don't have the apo E gene for Alzheimer's. This is very important for me to know, as it runs in my family.

2. I have the 5-MTHFR mutation resulting in elevated homocysteine levels. This means I can take a methylated vitamin B and folate and get this under control. This will cut my risk for coronary artery disease, alzheimer's etc.

3. My wife found out about her biological father. She has wondered about this for years.

4. She also has a variant of 5-MTHFR defect and can be treated with these vitamins.

5. A relative found out about fructose intolerance. She has had problems with foods for years.

6. A relative found out about markers for NSAID meds, and had recently been hospitalized with a bleeding ulcer.

ForFreeMinds
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2013
"and rightly so"?????

The FDA should apply the same standards to government DNA testing, in which case the government wouldn't be using them either. http://www.cato.o...-23andme

The author fails to show why the level of error is so bad as to make the tests worthless. Or that their existence has even harmed anyone.

One might also ask, why the FDA has jurisdiction over DNA testing for the purpose of determining ancestry. Doctors aren't ordering these for their patients, people are getting them for themselves. Legislators/regulators have no role here. If 23andMe defrauds consumers, they can sue in the courts for redress.

The answer of course, is government control of commerce. The more they control it, the wealthier they get for their control.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.